[URBANTH-L] ANN: Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations (Moscow)

[Angela Jancius]

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
INSTITUTE FOR AFRICAN STUDIES
CENTERS OF HISTORY AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
CENTER FOR CIVILIZATIONAL AND REGIONAL STUDIES
30/1 Spiridonovka St., 123001 Moscow, RUSSIA
Tel.: + (7 495) 291 4119; Fax: + (7 495) 202 0786

RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOR THE HUMANITIES
SCHOOL OF HISTORY, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND LAW
6, Miusskaya Ploshad' 125267 Moscow, RUSSIA
Tel.: + (7 495) 298 5886; Fax: + (7 495) 298 0345


FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
"HIERARCHY AND POWER IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATIONS"
June 23-26 2009, Moscow, Russia

SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS
Centers of History and Cultural Anthropology and for Civilizational and
Regional Studies of the Institute for African Studies, Russian Academy of
Sciences, and the School of History, Political Science and Law of the
Russian State University for the Humanities are organizing in Moscow on
June 23-26, 2009 the Fifth International Conference "HIERARCHY AND POWER
IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATIONS".

All the Conference events except culture program will take place on the
Russian State University for the Humanities main campus.

The working languages of the Conference are Russian and English.

The Organizing Committee has considered all the panel proposals received
by it. The descriptions of the accepted proposals please find below. The
deadline for paper proposals (in the form of abstracts within 300 words in
English) is November 1, 2008. Paper proposals should be sent not to the
Organizing Committee but directly to the respective panel convenor(s) who
is (are) to inform the applicant about his (her) application's fortune by
December 1, 2008. The information to be submitted alongside with the paper
abstract includes full name, title, institutional affiliation, full mail
and e-mail addresses, and fax #.

However, in the case you feel your paper does not fit any particular panel
but corresponds to the Conference general problematics, you may submit
your proposal to the Organizing Committee by the same date (November 1,
2008) and it will be considered for scheduling for the Free Communication
Panel. Besides, if the Organizing Committee finds it possible to unite an
appropriate number of proposals submitted for the Free Communication Panel
into a thematic panel, it may establish such a panel and propose one of
its prospective participants to become the convenor. None of the proposals
may be accepted or rejected on the basis of its submitter's previous
academic credentials, ethnic or national origin, sex, or otherwise, but
only on the basis of the proposal's relevance to and importance for, the
Conference's problematics.

All the general inquiries and proposals for the Free Communication Panel
should be sent to the Organizing Committee, for the attention of Ms.
Anastasia A. Banschikova and Dr. Oleg I. Kavykin, Conference Secretaries
preferably by e-mail (conf2009 at conf2009.ru), or either by fax (+ 7 495 202
0786), or by ordinary mail (Center of History and Cultural Anthropology,
Institute for African Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 30/1
Spiridonovka St., 123001 Moscow, Russia). The telephone number is: + 7 495
291 4119.

In the case the proposal is accepted, the Organizing Committee will send
you the list of documents necessary to support your and your panel
participants' visa application process at the Russian Consulate or Embassy
in the respective countries in the beginning of the year 2009.

The Conference participant's registration fee is 150 euros (or the
equivalent sum in US dollars or Russian rubles) which includes the visa
application support at the Russian Federal Migration Service,1 culture
program, Conference Book of Abstracts, reception, coffee-breaks, is to be
paid on the spot upon arrival. The fee for an accompanying person is 70
euros (or the equivalent sum in US dollars or Russian rubles) includes the
visa application support at the Russian Federal Migration Service,
participation in culture program and reception.

The Organizing Committee can assist in accommodation booking at the hotel
of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Downtown Moscow. The prices for
September 2007 are as follows: about 187 euros per night for a SGL room
and 186 euros for a DBL room. Accommodation at the hotel "Uzkoye" of the
Russian Academy of Sciences in a Moscow southern neighbourhood of is 97
euros per night (SGL room) and 123 euros (DBL room). Please note that the
prices may well be subjected to changes in the direction of growth. The
independent reservation in any other Moscow hotel well in advance is
strongly encouraged; furthermore it can turn out to be more reasonable.
For further information you may consult the Internet sites:
http://moscow-hotels.net and http://all-hotels.ru/moscow. Please do note
that the figures above may be subjected to some changes due to processes
in thansnational and national economy which are obviously out of the
Organizing Committee's control. If such changes happen, the Organizing
Committee will try its best to inform the Conference participants as soon
as possible.

PANELS ACCEPTED FOR THE CONFERENCE (In the alphabetical order of titles):
Aggression and Power Control in Traditional and Industrial Societies
Convenor: Prof. Marina Butovskaya (Institute of Ethnology and
Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail:
mbutovskaya at rambler.ru)

Aggression in the human society remains one of the most actively disputed
social phenomena. Despite thousands of annual publications on aggression,
attempts of its analysis from various angles, ranging from molecular to
macrosociological, we are still far from being ahead with elaboration of
effective methods of aggression control and prevention. A complex approach
to estimations of factors provoking aggression and determining particular
ways of its expression may provide an additional chance for better
understanding of the nature of this phenomenon and reasons for its
cross-cultural similarities and differences. In line with this Panel we
are planning to discuss a wide range of questions connected to modern
theories of interaction between aggression and power control on the
within-group and between-group levels. We are expecting to discuss the
issues of correlations between various expressions of aggression and
mechanisms of power control from very broad positions, including
evolutional, ecological, psychological, sociological, and anthropological
approaches. We suppose to discuss the family violence, aggression
practices in small groups, as well as traditional socialization practices
in cultures with clearly expressed gender asymmetry in power control.
Theoretical and field studies of personal and group mechanisms of control
over aggression are welcomed. Special attention will be given to studies
of traditional institutions of power control connected to conflict
resolution, as well as to investigations of transformations of traditional
representations of power control within the family and on the level of
small social groups in connection with rapid economic changes and
transitions from one economic structure to another. We would highly
welcome the presentations based to cross-cultural data, as well as
mathematic models of interactions between aggression and power control on
the in-group and between-group levels.

Analyses of Cultural Evolution
Convenors: Prof. Herbert Barry III (University of Pittsburgh, USA; E-mail:
barryh at pitt.edu); Prof. Douglas R. White (University of California-Irvine,
USA; E-mail: drwhite at uci.edu); Prof. Andrey Korotayev (Russian State
University for the Humanities & Institute for African Studies, Moscow,
Russia; E-mail: akorotayev at mail.ru)

Prior verbal theories of cultural evolution have led to empirically
testable mathematical models of this process. The panel is aimed at
discussion of further scientific methods for studying adaptive evolution
of governmental extension and selection. During the past several thousand
years, many independent communities have aggregated or been conquered to
form portions of a chiefdom, nation, or empire. Other communities have
remained independent. Some empires and nations have split into smaller
aggregations. Methods of choosing a new leader of a community or nation
include hereditary succession, conquest, selection by elite members, and a
formal election by some or all adults. Adaptive evolution can be inferred
when changes in cultural customs and in environmental conditions cause
changes in governance methods. New governance methods cause adaptive
changes in other cultural customs. Different governance methods are
associated with differences in education of children and adolescents.
Various techniques are available for analyzing adaptive evolution. The
same communities or nations can be compared at different times.
Similarities or differences after separation from the same antecedent
society can be identified in communities or nations. Measures of
governance methods, education, and other customs are available on a world
sample of 186 societies. Mathematical models of cultural evolution are
especially desirable but contributions without such models are also
welcome

Cases of Records: The Concept of Written Evidence within the Context of a
Socio-Cultural Hierarchy (Source Studies, Historical Anthropology, and
Interpretation of the History of the Document from Antiquity to
Renaissance)
Convenor: Dr. Nadejda A. Selounskaia (Russian State University for the
Humanities, Moscow; E-mails: spesbona at mail.ru; ravello at inbox.ru;
spes at dr.com)

It seems impossible to give a definition for the concept of "written
culture" as well as the interpretation of it beyond the hierarchal
principle of the society's organisation. A written culture occupies a
particular place within the hierarchy of cultural values . It usually
relates to a so called "culture of elites" (contrary to "oral tradition",
associated with low classes of the society). However, such a primitive
opposition includes a risk not to notice the nuances of the correlation
between social and cultural processes. The research of the cases of
composition of the records provides several advantages. Firstly, we have
the chance to identify multiple influence, initiated by the
representatives of different social strata on the composition of the
document( for example, it could be the discourse of the witnesses and the
judges, or persons who ordered the documents and its composers. Secondly,
it becomes clear, that the culture of the written, recorded evidence
(including the aspects of law and the juridical culture) was wide spread
among common people in the particular historical periods in the different
regions of Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance Europe.

The main goal of the project is taking down the tradition of the primitive
bipolar opposition written culture of the elite to the popular "law" oral
tradition without the rejecting of the attempts to trace the correlation
between the specific cases of the written evidence and  the aspects,
related to the complicated structure of society.

Within the framework of the section we are planning to discuss the
following topics: 1). The reasons and the cases of the initial records of
the law custom, oral and historical tradition, myth, rituals.
2). The distribution of the roles and of the functions in the process of
the registrations of the cases. Initiators and translators of the records,
the addressees: the translators sensu stricto (in the stricter sense) of
the word, the interpreters and the mediators, the audience and
eyewitnesses. The analysis of the needs, the strategies, the goals of the
initiators, translators and the addressees of the records.
3) The influence of the oral culture, tradition, customs, customary law
and the performance of the rituals in the process of the creating of the
record. The mutual influences. The record reproduces the voices and
sounds, the atmosphere in which the written evidence was created.
4) The art of scriba/notaria from Antiquity to Renaissance epoque.
Medieval Notarius, the culture of the document through the centuries in
the Latin West.
5) The principles, the aims and the goals of the recording and of the
creating of the written evidence; the methods of the historical
reconstructions. The technical details and formulae of the record; the
case studies: the situations and peculiarities of the recording.

Civilization and State in Africa in History and at Present: Becoming and
Disintegration Factors (Values and Law, Economy and Politics)
Convenor: Prof. Anatoliy D. Savateev (Institute for African Studies,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: asavat at mail.ru)

In the 1990s two inconsistent directions have arisen in an estimation of
mutual relations of a civilization and State in the western scientific
idea. The first, which ancestor was Francis Fukuyama, in essence abolishes
a role of civilizational systems in world politics, approving a victory of
western (American) political, cultural, economical institutes and values
in planetary scale. The second approach, on the contrary, brings to the
forefront relations between civilizations, which, as the founder of this
thought Samuel Huntington considers, becomes the basic content of
contradictions of the present. Opposition of the States, on its idea, is
replaced with an antagonism of civilizations. At the same time two
approaches to definition of a civilization exist in one civilizational
paradigm in the basic: the first one considers civilization as a
socio-cultural reality, whereas for partisans of other approach a
civilization is first of all a mental concept, a social construct.

Organizers of section suggest to discuss theoretical problems with
reference first of all to history and the present of the African
continent, and also the global world. They consider, that integrating of
the State in Africa was preceded with penetration and strengthening of
world civilizations - Islamic and Christian one (separately is Egyptian
one).  Simultaneously the development of statehood in its western forms
promoted spreading of elements of western civilization (Christian
religion, language, writing, the literature of various genres, an
appropriate way of a life, a political culture, practical orientation of
spiritual culture, a pragmatism in social sphere, evolution of facilities
in a direction of raw-material producing type). However the evolution of
western type statehood occurs under the strongest influence of African
social and cultural systems the result of which becomes occurrence of
original, Africanized political institutes and norms, forms, maintenance
and organization of economy. Misunderstanding of features of the State in
Africa, its (and economic life) intimate connect with traditional, ethnic,
confessional, clan structures became the reason of disappointments of a
greater part of the western and domestic researchers in results both
pro-bourgeois, and pro-socialist transformations on the continent.

Unlike European civilization which as a whole was spread from above, by
colonial administration and by European organizations, Islamic
civilization in Tropical Africa got from below and it was fixed in
society, focusing the person on maintenance of social communications,
consolidation of a society and observance of morally-legal harmony. It to
a lesser degree developed political institutes though promoted becoming of
the large States, however has shown greater tenacity and flexibility in
conditions of Africa. Moreover, separate societies, where the synthesis of
the African social and cultural systems and structures of Islam happened,
showed the world such original Islamic-African institutes which appeared
able to adapt oneself to present time, combining in itself economic
efficiency and social and cultural consolidation.

In this connection the organizers of the Panel propose to discuss
followings issues:
1. Co-operation of civilization and State in African conditions and other
regions of the world.
2. The role of large States (empires) in life of people of continent and
other parts of planet (positive or negative).
3. What is intercommunication of spiritual and financial components in the
development of civilization and State in the history and modern times?
4. Does development of African societies and States conducts to appearance
of analogues of western civilization, i.e. to westernization with its
democracy and individual human rights or it deals with traditionalization
of the modernity?
5. How do traditional moral norms and western type law combine in these
terms?  Ordinary law and civil society?
6. Do political institutes, cultures, economy of the African people evolve
in what direction?
7. What part did the institutes, cultures, economy act in past and modern
life of society and State? How did they influence upon civilizations?
8. Is there in the African social and cultural systems and economies
internal potential of development, able to provide arise of societies and
economies, like to same in South-East Asia and on the Far East?

Culture as a Major Factor in Relations between States and People
Convenors: Dr. John A. Taylor (University of Southern Illinois, Chicago,
USA; E-mail: john_taylor84 at post.harvard.edu); Mr. Ivan Nechepurenko
(University of Calgary, Canada; E-mail: inechepo at ucalgary.ca)

Our panel will discuss one instance of this, the communication between
Russians and English-speaking people, and we will also discuss Japanese
and Russian relations briefly. The panel will claim that characteristic
and often-recurring difficulties hinder communication between Russians and
English-speaking people.

During the time of the Soviet Union, everyone realized that communication
between Russians and English-speaking people was difficult. The Soviet
Union closed its borders to many travelers, and its official ideology was
also closed to outside influences, for instance. These hindrances to
communication were visible and objective. They presented great
difficulties, deterring many American and British academics.
Kremlinologists as they were sometimes called specialized in Russian
language and politics, and they tried to analyze and predict the various
turns of Soviet policy, although these scholars often did so wrongly, and
few of them predicted the fall of the Soviet system. These scholars
studied Russia intently, but they found it hard to obtain visas to visit
the country itself, and they were limited and controlled when they did
visit Russia. American and British visitors were often followed or
otherwise kept under surveillance, for instance. On the other hand,
scholars of Soviet nationality had even less access to America and western
Europe. Only a small handful of Soviet citizens could obtain, and then
with difficulty, the papers and hard currency necessary for travel abroad.
In practice, few Soviet professors and even fewer students did travel.
Most Soviet academics never met any American or British counterparts.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, these obstacles disappeared;
nevertheless, other obstacles, most of them cultural, have since become
evident. The emergence of these obstacles was a surprise. People on both
sides ended the Cold War period with the assumption that the disappearance
of official barriers to communication between Russians and the
English-speaking world would mean that there were no longer any barriers
at all. Most people hoped that combination would become easy and fully
successful. Unfortunately, this goal proved to be too difficult to achieve
in practice. In fact, some major cultural differences always existed but
were concealed from the mainstream point of view during Soviet times.
Since both the conveners of this panel are involved in higher education,
the panel emphasizes communication in education. Nevertheless, the authors
hope that the panel may be of value to people in other fields as well, and
in the conclusion of the panel they will very briefly apply its principles
to broader issues.

One of the panel's conveners is an American specialist in British history
who periodically teaches in Russia and who has also taught in Japan.
Another is a Russian, currently studying at a Canadian University. We are
prepared to discuss Russian communications with Japan as well. We are also
prepared to invite more participants, Russians as well as foreigners; our
connections in Russia as well as in America will allow us to do so. We
think, that the subject of our future panel is especially important now,
when relations between Russia and the outside world are being explained
mostly in political terms. We argue, that cultural misunderstandings
hinder successful cooperation between Russia and the outside World.

Despotism in the History of Civilizations
Convenor: Prof. Leslie Gunawardana (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka;
E-mail: leslie.gunawardana at gmail.com; leslieg12 at hotmail.com)

Reflection on hierarchy and power in the history of civilizations would
invariably come to focus on despotism as a phenomenon of enormous
interest. Despotism assumed varied forms in human history. The specific
features of these diverse forms and the common elements that link them
across space and time deserve careful study. While historical state
systems, especially those in Asia, will attract particular attention, this
emphasis will be moderated by the awareness of dangers of excessive
limitation of spatial or chronological focus. It is expected that
considerable attention will be devoted to economic, social and ideological
bases of despotism, the common characteristics of despotism in history and
factors conducive to opening paths to emerge from despotism or to avoid
the path of despotism.

The term despotism developed in contexts of acute political rivalry, as in
the struggles against the Persians by the Greeks or against Sulla by
leading Roman patricians. It was revived in French polemics on absolutism
during the reign of Louis XIV when views on "despotism of the Orient"
hardened into a concept that was carefully distinguished from the "legal"
and "enlightened" despotism of European monarchs. During the expansion of
colonialism in the "old world" and across the Atlantic, the term gained
wide currency, and the despotic image was freely applied to archaic and
traditional polities in Asia and elsewhere, thereby providing a popular
justification for colonialism.

A major theoretical hypothesis on despotism linked it with needs of
agriculture in arid lands on the argument that the crucial value to the
community of the despot's work as "total entrepreneur" providing
irrigation facilities was behind the acceptance of despotism in those
lands. While the position and functions of the despot were supposedly
strengthened by his "bureaucracy," the absence of economic and social
institutions with adequate countervailing power to check his actions has
been used among variant explanations for the rise of despotism, and the
isolation of rural settlements has been cited as another contributing
factor.

Presumptions about despotism are not always supported by available
historical data. While large-scale hydraulic enterprise was usually
state-sponsored, the daily maintenance and management of such works often
passed on to third parties. On the other hand, religious institutions and
private families were very often behind irrigation enterprise of medium
and small scale. By retaining control of operations at these irrigation
works they benefited from incomes derived from irrigation activity.
Consequently, present within such types of irrigation society were social
groups with economic resources that enabled them to check and balance the
growth of royal power.

Even though some scholars have drawn sharp distinctions between
"irrigation" and "trading" societies, some irrigation societies in history
have also been trading societies with merchant groups controlling
considerable economic resources and capable of functioning as
countervailing forces unfavourable to the growth of royal power. This
meant that even if they came under the shadow of despotism, emergence from
that state would not depend entirely on intervention by external imperial
powers.

>From Simple Societies to the World-System. Pathways and Forms of Political
Integration
Convenor: Dr. Daniel Smihula (University of Constantine the Philosopher,
Nitra, Slovakia & University of Vienna, Austria, E-mail:
daniel.smihula at vlada.gov.sk)

In the framework of this panel several questions should be discussed:
1) A man as a collective creature.
2) Intra-social and inter-social relations.
3) Possible rules applicable in primitive societies.
4) Question of the group sees as the most important for self-identification
5) Differences between internal political system and international
political system.
6) Possible form of organization of human beings.
7) Origin of the State.
8) Reasons of dominance of the State over alternative political structures.
9) Situation in collapsed states and in the time of decline of State power
(for example in post-socialist countries after 1989) - Return to more
primitive organizations? (e.g. organised crime, clans, tribes, mafia).
10) International system and its rules.
11) Special similarity between  primitive social systems and the
international system.
12) Regional international system.
13) World international system and its subsystems.
14) Challenges to today world international system.
15) Globalisation and the world government?
16) Unipolarism of the USA and its impact on the world international
system and international law.
17) Potential disintegration of our today world international system.

Globalization: Reshaping the Research Agenda
Convenors: Prof. Fantu Cheru (The Nordic African Institute, Uppsala,
Sweden; E-mail: fantu.cheru at nai.uu.se); Prof. Vladimir Shubin (Institute
for African Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail:
vladimir.shubin at inafr.ru; vlgs at yandex.ru)

Writings on globalization are rapidly proliferating. Yet systematic
research on globalization is only slightly more than a decade in the
making. It is connected to, but differs from, forerunner studies of world
history, social theory, and related branches of international relations.
Globalization studies has emerged as a means to explain the myriad
features of worldwide restructuring in the last 20th and early 21st
centuries. Notwithstanding major theoretical innovations, as a field of
study, globalization is more of a potential than a refined framework,
worldview, kit of tools and methods, and mode of resolving questions.
Surely there are grounds for discontent with globalization studies. To
some critics, globalization is seen as a promiscuous concept, one that
cries out for ore analytical precision and empirical rigor. Moreover,
globalization is sometimes deemed over determined - too abstract, too
structural, and insufficiently attentive to agency. Not only does
globalization seem to be too blunt a tool, but what does it leave out?
What is not globalization? What is the effect of globalisation in
different regions? How do different forces respond to it?

These complaints are formidable challenges to globalization researchers.
Of course, these scholars are not univocal. There are different
interpretations and considerable contestation. But what are the different
responses to the discomfort with this emerging field? Where to go from
here, and what are the most promising research strategies?

"Great Kings" and "Lesser Kings": The Ranking of Political Subjects in
Ancient and Early Mediaeval Times
Convenor: Dr. Alexander A. Nemirovskiy (Institute of World History,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: sidelts at inbox.ru)

This panel is dedicated to various phenomena of hierarchization and
ranking of political subjects and units (communities, groups,
functionaries, structural elements) which are of similar nature by
themselves but receive different ranks within some system of inequitable
mutual relations, so that they appear as elements of "vertical" scale or
"horizontal" alignment according to respective highness of their status or
power. It deals with ranking of rulers; dignitaries; administrative,
territorial and tribal subdivisions; political communities; various groups
of population of similar social nature but unequal status and rights, etc.

The most important varieties of these phenomena are as follows:
- distinguishing between "great" and "lesser" rulers and/or powers in
international relations (while all of them are recognized as sovereign
political units independent from each other);
- hierarchies of supreme and vassal rulers existing within one political
entity (while all of them are positioned on different levels of one and
the same political class described by a common title of "king" etc., or,
vice versa, are regarded as elements of totally different political
classes which have no common title and constitute a kind of vertical
scale);
- relative ranking of supreme and dependent rulers who are members of
different political entities;
- hierarchies of supreme/ predominant and dependent political communities
(suzerain and vassal states, hegemonic entities and their minor "allies"
etc.);
- ranking of dependent political units (rulers or communities) in respect
to each other within the frames of their common subordination to one
supreme power (while these dependent units may or may be not
co-subordinated to each other in their own turn);
- ranking of administrative, tribal and territorial subdivisions of one
political entity (e.g. major and minor appanages in Mediaeval Russia and
scales of seniority of "wings" or "juzes" in Turko-Mongolic societies) and
various orders of succession of their rulers;
- ranking of dignitaries and other persons of extraordinary high status
within one political structure or entity; the corresponding hierarchical
scales;
- ranking of professional and social groups of similar or nearly similar
economic nature (e.g. some castes in India).

Various phenomena of such rankings can be combined with vertical
subordination of subjects of different rank to each other (suzerain -
vassal relations) as well as with their nominal and/or real independency
from each other (great and minor sovereign states) or co-subordination to
the common supreme rule (vassals of different rank). Distinguishing and
study of these varieties will be one of the panel's aims.

Some other special aspects of the theme in discussion would be:
- correlation of reality and formalization within phenomena of ranking,
i.e. the correlations between real subordination and difference in power
on the one hand and formalized rank differences (in titularies, rites,
etiquette etc.) and nominal subordination on the other one;
- ideology and conceptualization of ranking and hierarchization;
- legitimate and illegitimate ways of changing a subject's rank within a
hierarchy; revisions and redistributions of places occupied by various
political units within a hierarchy (e.g. passage of a state into category
of "great powers" from minor ones); mechanics of transition of a
predominant position within a hierarchy from one political subject to
another one.
- means used to maintain the ranking system (and the resulting hierarchy)
stable and means used to reform them; attempts to struggle for full or
partial abolition of some ranking system and hierarchy itself.

We are glad to invite to our panel everyone who would like to present a
paper somehow related in subject to the themes enlisted above.

Hierarchies, Networks and Flows in the Sociopolitical Development of
Southern Africa
Convenor: Dr. Franco Barchiesi (Ohio State University, Columbus, USA;
E-mail: barchiesi.1 at osu.edu)

The contributions presented in this panel discuss the conceptual relevance
and intersections of hierarchies, networks and flows in shaping the
contemporary definition of Southern Africa as a regional space. The panel
combines different social science perspectives to specifically focus on
Southern Africa's social and political development subsequent to the
collapse of the South African Apartheid regime and the post-Cold War
scenario of globalization.

Hierarchical views of the Southern African region have greatly shaped past
scholarly debates and contrasting theoretical perspectives. This is the
case both for views praising the allegedly modernizing role of foreign
direct investment, transnational corporations, and international financial
institutions, and for critical perspectives looking at the role of South
Africa as a regional hegemon, with the attendant regional socioeconomic
inequalities and uneven development that followed the South African
post-Apartheid transition.

At the core of such debates has often been the need to conceptualize
regionalism in this specific case: Is the notion of a Southern African
regionalism just a tool to enhance the area's competitiveness in global
markets, which are on the other hand also characterized by hierarchical
inequalities? Does it merely disguise South Africa's continuous economic
and political dominance? Is it a metaphor for international economic and
political cooperation within the evolving contexts of democratization and
the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), where Africa's role
in relation to global powers and institutions remains fraught with
ambiguities? Or can "the region" be thought of as a counter-hegemonic
space, where alternatives to global free market capitalism are elaborated
through networks and flows of ideas and practices connecting civil
societies and social movements?

Paradigms focusing on the role of hierarchies in shaping the region are,
in fact, often in need of insights into dimensions of grassroots agency
and subjectivity that are relatively opaque from the standpoint of formal
organizational and institutional analysis. Concepts of networks and flows
can therefore be used to account for such neglected aspects that
contribute to the continuous production and reproduction of a regional
Southern African space.

The purpose of this panel is, therefore, to explore interactions between
hierarchical processes (like top-down development discourses, structures
of production and work, cross-border corporate investment, transnational
commodity chains, social stratifications underpinning national social
policies, and the position of the region in global divisions of labor),
dynamics of flows (of migrations, cross-border identities, ideas of
citizenship and democracy, emancipatory discourses), and networks (of
trade, informal economic activities, transnational entrepreneurship,
social movements and collective identities). These are the main factors
discussed in this panel, which interrogates the multiple meanings of
Southern Africa as a regional space, and how they overlap and relate to
local specificities.

Hierarchy and Power in the Sphere of Cyber Anthropology
Convenors: Dr. Alexei G. Loutskiy (Moscow Government; E-mail:
shaanxi at mail.ru); Dr. Oleg I. Kavykin (Institute for African Studies,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: atrociter at mail.ru)

The panel's aim is a discussion on the following questions:
Cyber Anthropology in the context of contemporary Cultural Anthropology,
i.e. specifics of the subject, object and researcher of the
sub-discipline;
Power in Cyberspace / Power of Cyberspace (i.e. interactions between
formal and informal relations in World village);
Net and hierarchy as the principles of organization of users in
information networks;
Cyberspace as supporting system;
Projective systems and Cyberspace (i.e. ideologies of the Net \ ideologies
in the Net);
Cyberspace and the processes of enculturation and socialization.

Leadership in Hunter-Gatherer Societies
Convenors: Dr. James Woodburn (London School of Politics and Economics,
UK; E-mail: james at woodburn.org.uk); Prof. Olga Artemova (Institute of
Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mails:
artemova.olga at list.ru; olga.artemova at jcu.edu.au)

The focus of this panel will be on leadership in hunter-gatherer societies
both in the past and at present. We will be concerned with societies with
a known and locally acknowledged recent history of living largely by
hunting and gathering including those societies whose present-day way of
life may involve little or no hunting and gathering. Did such
hunter-gatherers, and do they now, have distinctive forms of leadership?
We seek discussion of the whole range of forms of leadership, both formal
and informal, in both society-wide contexts and in smaller units including
domestic units. We seek to consider both leadership roles which are
exercised in a range of situations and those which are restricted to
specific situations.

Many, though certainly not all, hunter-gatherer societies have been
characterized in the hunter-gatherer literature as lacking formal
positions of authority, as lacking institutionalized and recognized
leaders. How do or did such societies operate? How, in particular, are or
were decisions reached?

If many of these societies had no formal leaders, has this influenced the
contemporary situation? Do formal relations of authority exist today and
can those who today may occupy positions of authority persuade or compel
other members of their societies to recognize and accept their authority?
In what sense, if any, do those claiming leadership roles today (in
political situations where leadership may well be crucial in the
contemporary struggle with outsiders for land and other resources) gain
the active acknowledgement, recognition and support of other members of
their societies? Many of us in our research encounter individuals who
claim to lead and represent their communities. Do other members of their
societies accept their credentials and vest them with the authority to act
on behalf of the community? How do such leaders come to power and how do
they maintain their power? What continuities and discontinuities are there
between leadership in the hunter-gatherer past and leadership in the
contemporary world?

The aim of this panel is to achieve a better understanding of the nature
of leadership in hunter-gatherer societies and to make this understanding
available to all those hunter-gatherer leaders and followers who are today
working productively to enable their people to retain and develop their
rights to land and resources and to maintain and enhance valued
characteristics of their culture and society.

Lineage as Legitimacy in Asian Religious Communities
Convenor: Ms. Amy Holmes (Australian National University, Canberra;
E-mail: amy.holmes at anu.edu.au)

This panel will explore various facets of how hierarchy is developed and
legitimised in Asian religions through focusing on lineage discourses in
several religious traditions in Asia. Lineage serves to link together
religious believers and practitioners into an imagined collective through
commonly acknowledged ties with previous masters. Lineage ties together
groups that are otherwise socially and sometimes culturally unrelated,
thereby creating cultural models that are open for emulation and that are
legitimated by association with the power of previously renowned
practitioners. However, as well as their religious significance, lineages
can also have profound social, economic and political implications.

The members of this panel all focus on different forms of lineage across
different Asian civilizations in an attempt to portray the pervasiveness
and potency of lineage in its various manifestations. Through looking at
different cultures comparatively, several commonalities emerge that
highlight the importance of lineage to the authority of religious
communities. There are also important differences in the manifestations
and depth of involvement of lineage for these collectives in their
different cultural environments. Some religious groups remain spiritual in
focus, while others become important political forces, or become linked to
ethnic identity.

This panel will also explore the different ways in which lineage is
constructed, and the methods by which particular lineages are propagated.
Rather than seeing lineage as an imposing monolithic force, here we define
it as negotiable and fluid, the manifestation of the sum of the
individuals who are affiliated to it. This perspective allows for a freer
understanding of how lineage affects the societies within which it is
formed, and its contestability also remains crucial to perceiving its
pervasiveness in the imaginations of individuals across such varying
civilizations.

Macroevolution: Hierarchy, Structure, Laws, and Self-Organization
Convenors: Prof. Leonid E. Grinin (Volgograd Center for Social Studies,
Russia; E-mail: lgrinin at mail.ru); Prof. Alexander V. Markov
(Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail:
markov_a at inbox.ru); Prof. Akop P. Nazaretyan (Institute of Oriental
Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: anazaret at yandex.ru);
Dr. Fred Spier (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; E-mail:
f.spier at uva.nl)

It is increasingly realized today that interdisciplinary research has a
great potential. The study of evolution very much belongs to this type of
research. The proposed panel is aimed at bringing together major scholars
investigating different type of evolution in order to exchange the results
and unify the efforts. The panel is supposed to consider cosmological,
chemical, biological and socio-cultural macroevolution as both consecutive
and co-existing types of macroevolution. We believe that this is a very
important form of interdisciplinary cooperation, which may well help to
achieve a better understanding of the trends, patterns, mechanisms, and
peculiarities exhibited by all these different types of evolution. The
experience gained with using ideas originating within one particular type
of macroevolution (e.g., biological evolution) for the study of another
type of macroevolution (e.g. social macroevolution) indicates that such an
approach can be very fruitful. In fact, in certain respects it appears
possible to consider macroevolution as one single process. In this case it
is especially important to understand the underlying regularities and
laws, although some of these regularities and laws can be rather
different, depending on the concrete entity evolving (cosmic, biological,
or social).

We suggest the following range of topics for discussion:
1) comparisons between cosmic, chemical, biological, and social evolution;
2) General issues within Big History / Universal History;
3) The "evolution of evolution" (the evolution of evolutionary theories);
4) Particular types of macroevolution, or macroevolution "at the border
between two domains" (e.g. with respect to ethology or biochemistry);
5) Other topics, such as linguistic, cultural, epistemological, or
psychological macroevolution.

A main focus for the panel will be to look for those regularities and
rules that are common for different types of macroevolution, as well as
the analysis of the applicability of concrete rules to particular types of
macroevolution.

Our main starting points are the following. Firstly, evolutionary rules
should not be regarded as rigid functional relationships that are
necessarily found in all evolutionary phenomena of a particular class, but
rather as certain principles that tend to be supported by empirical data
and that can therefore help us to provide a more adequate explanation of
the studied complex processes. Secondly, there are important grounds for
seeking to determine similarities between different types of
macroevolution:
?) In most cases we are dealing with very complex non-equilibrium yet
relatively stable systems. The general principles of the functioning and
evolution of such systems are described by general systems and complexity
(non-linear dynamics) theories;
b) We observe a complex interaction between systems and their environments
that can be described by a few general principles (although they emerge in
somewhat different ways in different types of evolution);
c) It is important to become aware of certain "genetic" links between
different types of evolution.

One further important task of the panel will consist of the analysis of
evolution of various types of hierarchically and heterarchically ordered
structures within different types of macroevolution.

Material Landscape of Power: Gender, Political Identity, and Complexity in
Archaeological Context
Convenor: Prof. Nikolay N. Kradin (Institute of History, Archaeology, and
Ethnology, Far-Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Vladivostok; E-mail: kradin at mail.ru)

As a discipline distinct from anthropology and history, archaeology
studies the longue duree of human life. From the traditional perspective
history as a narrowly defined discipline begins with the invention of
writing. Ethnologists investigate recent non-state societies, groups
already influenced by modernization. Historical and ethnological studies
are useful for archaeologists. Archaeological sources are more fragmentary
than written sources and the observations of ethnographers. Ceramics,
fragments of artifacts, and stratigraphic levels are all that the
archeologist has. How is it possible to study authority with these poor
data? What does a rich burial signify for status position or property? Is
there a correlation between social inequality, power, and domination in
prehistoric and traditional societies? How may we distinguish, for
example, chiefdoms from other complex non-state societies and the states
and civilizations using archeological sources?

We suggest to discuss the following problems:
1). Archeological criteria of rank and power.
2). Age, gender, and status in archaeological sources.
3). Elites, material symbols, and identity of cultural groups.
4). Landscape of power: architecture of habitation before and after death.
5). Archaeology of political spaces: peer polity, chiefdom, early state in
material culture.

Movements and Revolutions from Net to Hierarchical Structures
Convenor: Dr. Bahram Navazeni (Imam Khomeini International University,
Qazvin, Iran; E-mails: info at navazeni.ir; navazenib at ikiu.ac.ir)

The history of mankind has witnessed various types of state system in
which the main subject had always been the distribution of power towards
maintaining the true values of own. In each type, the old or modern,
theocratic or democratic, despotic or pluralistic, different classes and
groups have played different roles either in supporting or opposing the
ruling power which may have some relation to a particular context of
cultural, religious, social and economic power. Classes such as nobles,
clergies, bourgeoisie, proletariats, and peasants and groups such as
patriots, zealots, and nationalists may insist on their will and not ease
until the victory of the revolution and the collapse of the whole system.
But even when the revolutionaries came to power, they would find the
distribution of power as the their first task. This game continues with
the opposition groups as the counter revolutionaries.

Covering a large area of the political science field, this panel
encourages all academics and scholars of politics, sociology, history and
all those interested in the nature of the old or modern state, and the
power it wields to use historical and contemporary materials to illustrate
the theoretical analysis and the different and changing will and need of
the ruling and revolutionary groups and classes. The Russian, Persian,
British, American, Turk, Arab, Indian, Chinese, and African revolutions,
old or new, will surely be interesting and appreciated in this panel. I
invite the interested participants to discuss the cause and process of
movements and revolutions and to find a way to ease tensions among the
civilization as a whole.

Political Dynamics of the Muslim World and Evolution of Islamic Political
Thought from a Comparative Perspective
Convenors: Dr. Igor Alexeev (Russian State University for the Humanities,
Moscow; E-mail: ialxyv at gmail.com); Dr. Pavel Basharin (Russian State
University for the Humanities, Moscow; E-mail: pbasharin at yandex.ru)

The panel aims to discuss various problems of political history of Muslim
societies and evolution of Islamic political thought from a wide
interdisciplinary perspective.

The panel's concern revolves around understanding of both traditional
forms of Islamic political culture and the recent developments. In
particular, the panel seeks to evaluate the dynamycs of traditional
socio-political structures and ideologycal complexes as well as their
transformation under the influence and impacts of modernization processes.
Our theoretical premise is that the interaction between the tradition and
modernization is by no means unidirectional, as well as the very meaning
of these conceptions can hardly be unified. The panel participants are
invited to theorize processes of crisis and transformation as permanent
factors of political dynamics of various societies of the Muslim World. On
the other hand, methaphysical and theological presumptions and constructs
reflecting the dynamics of religion as politics and politics as religion
can be also helpful to understand processes of intellectual reflection of
the political as a general category of thought. That is why we are
welcoming political historians and historians of thought as well as
political scientists, anthropologists and other specialists interested in
this problematique.

Power and Legitimation: Political Strategies in Early States
Convenor: Prof. Peter N. Peregrine (Lawrence University, Appleton, USA;
E-mail: peter.n.peregrine at lawrence.edu)

I propose a three-dimensional model for describing and analyzing political
strategies in early states. The dimensions are: (1) source of power; (2)
implementation of power; and (3) means of legitimation. I suggest that
there are less "costly" and more "costly" strategies along these of these
dimensions, as well as less "stable" and more "stable" strategies, all
dependent on the historical and social context and the physical
environment. I suggest emergent leaders employ the least "costly"
strategies available to them, but shift to more "stable" ones as they are
able (and sometimes they are not, and the state collapses). This model is
unapologetically "top-down" and formalist in its approach, but I believe
this is a defensible position given both the limitations of comparative
archaeology and, more importantly, the reality of political process in
early states.

"Republic of Letters" as a Net Structure in the Cultural Space in the 16th
- 18th Centuries
Convenor: Dr. Violetta Trofimova (Institute of Foreign Languages & St.
Petersburg State University, Russia; E-mail: violet_trofimova at mail.ru)

This panel seeks to analyze various aspects of the birth and development
of the "net" of the Renaissance and Early Modern European intellectuals
called "Respublica Litteraria" or "Republic of Letters." The term itself
was made popular by Erasmus in the early 16th century, and later was to
describe the community of European scholars of the Western world in the
Early Modern period.

>From the very beginning "The Republic of Letters" was an elite community,
and at some stages and in some countries it did not eliminate the idea of
hierarchy - see, for example, T. Boccalini's "Ragguagli del Parnaso"
(1614), where the head of the "Republic" is Prince Apollo. Nevertheless,
by the end of the 17th century the authors who discussed the phenomenon of
the "Republic of Letters" underlined its non-hierarchal nature.

As for the Enlightenment period, which is considered the separate stage in
the existence of the "Republic of Letters," it saw the wide spread of the
ideas of universalism and cosmopolitanism, which had been promoted by the
citizens of the "Republic." The end of the 18th century marked the eclipse
of the very idea of the "Republic of Letters."

This panel focuses on the image of the "Republic of Letters" as a
net-like, hierarchal/non-hierarchal structure in the minds of Early Modern
people. It strives to represent "Republic of Letters" as a cultural
phenomenon. It invites papers which discuss this phenomenon in the whole,
as well as various subcultures in the "Republic of Letters," for example,
separate intellectual networks, figures of intellectuals belonging to this
community, literary works which were the result of the existence and
activity of the "Republic of Letters" etc. It invites scholars to analyze
the phenomenon of the "Republic of Letters" from historical,
philosophical, sociological and other points of view.

"Republic of Letters" was an early predecessor of the Internet, and the
ideas of the "citizens" of the "Republic" became the ground for such
political structures, as UN and EU, as well as for the very concept of the
global world.

Socio-Cultural Perceptions of Globalization: A Global Resemblance or a
Local Recognition?
Convenor: Dr. Irina Vasilenko (Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia;
E-mail: irina.vasilenko at research.vu.edu.au; bridgingrussia at hotmail.com)

In today's world, Globalization is more than the capstone of economic
transition that drives local economies; more than the production of the
higher-order capacity necessary for effective communication tools; it is a
critical pillar of human development worldwide that, indeed, has
remarkably intensified a socio-cultural transformation. A multifaceted
nature of this influence creates an immense complexity in transformation
registered in all spheres of social and cultural life affecting each
nation or individual. The socio-cultural transformation manifests a
complicated character of changes, conflicting tendencies, and a
contradicted pattern of simultaneously occurring processes, endorsing
assimilation, adaptation, and adjustment along with a reinstatement.

Globalization motivates changes occurring in traditions, culture, and
mentality, collective as well as individual, and indeed, in education,
arts, communication, and other social institutions. These changes are
central to the transformation of not only a national intellectual capacity
of local knowledge of being sufficient in a global environment, but also
to a promotion of worldwide practices necessary to update individual
knowledge and skills. A widespread discourse of these changes demonstrates
that Globalization is more influential than ever in respect to the social
and cultural transformation.

At that same time, to challenge the global influence is appeared to be the
most critical dimension in the process of socio-cultural transformation.
The increasing importance of local knowledge, tradition and culture is
significant for surfacing the inverse changes answerable for a
reoccurrence of traditionalism, conservatism, and nationalism in the
post-industrial, industrial and transitional societies. It is also
responsible for maintaining the various forms of social and cultural
estrangement and for developing an intricacy of socio-cultural perceptions
in different societies.

The complexity of socio-cultural transformations in a rapidly changing
global environment has made necessary for a further discussion in respect
to the theoretical assumptions and policies concerning a global influence
on a socio-cultural transformation in general, and a role of
socio-cultural perceptions of Globalization for a national development on
the core of a country's competitive advantage in the global environment,
in particularly.

The Panel invites scholars, social scientists, social anthropologists,
humanists, international educators and independent researchers to discuss
the complexity of socio-cultural perceptions of Globalization in the
environment of traditional, post-industrial, industrial and transitional
societies. The Panel calls for a presentation of papers, case studies,
research, surveys, or personal observations informing about cultural and
social transformations  taking place in human development and revealing
currently occurred changes in social life, psychology, arts, education,
and culture as well as in the social institutions their represented.

The interdisciplinary theme of the Panel opens a wider opportunity to
discuss different paradigms of socio-cultural perceptions of Globalization
in various milieus; tendencies that support or restrict a worldwide
integration; and forms of socio-cultural estrangement, The participants
also encourage in stimulating a dialogue on both advantages and
disadvantages of socio-cultural transformation, how different social
institutions are responding to the challenges and opportunities of the
global environment; and how Globalization affects not only the shape and
mode of national operation but also a life of the individuals.

The Emergence of the State in Europe
Convenor: Prof. Alessandro Guidi (Verona University, Italy; E-mail:
alessandro.guidi at univr.it)

Normally we consider ancient early states those of Near East, Egypt,
Mesoamerica and Peru.

The archaeological researches of the last 25 years demonstrated that in
many parts of Europe state systems are present, often before contact with
so called "superior civilizations".

The aim of this panel is to analyze their emergence in early I millennium
Italy and Spain, "Dark Age" Greece, late I millennium Central Europe,
France and Britain).

Crucial themes will be:
1). Definition of different pathways toward the State;
2). Presence/absence of cities;
3). Endogenous vs. exogenous development;
4). Centre/periphery relationships.

The End of Socialist States and the Rise of Ethnic Nationalism
Convenor: Dr. Charles Rheaume (National Defense Headquarters, Ottawa,
Canada; E-mails: rheaume.cc at forces.gc.ca; crheau at sympatico.ca)

Various kinds of ethnic nationalism have developed at the turn of the 21st
century. This phenomenon, as manifested in international relations, is to
be traced in good part to the disappearance of the Socialist Bloc and its
internationalist discourse. Among that paradigm shift's fiercest episodes
were Yugoslavia's break-up and the Bosnian war, which had repercussions in
contexts as remote as Canadian politics. The rise of ethnic nationalism
expresses itself in subtle ways as well. This is the case with
Russian-language humor from Russian immigrants against their receiving
societies where they voice nostalgia for the superpower status of the
Soviet Union.

The Forms of Social Stratification and Power Institutions in Chiefdoms and
State Societies of South America and Mesoamerica
Convenors: Dr. Ernesto Gonzalez Licon (National School of Anthropology and
History, Mexico City, Mexico; E-mail: eglicon at yahoo.com.mx); Dr. Carlos
Armando Rodriguez (University del Valle, Cali, Colombia; E-mail:
carodrig at univalle.edu.co); Dr. Anastasia Kalyuta (Russian Ethnological
Museum, St. Petersburg; E-mails: anastasiakalyuta at mail.ru;
kalyuta at ethnomuseum.ru)

The main objective of this panel is to discuss the civilizational and
evolutionary models of socio-political development of two important
regions in the pre-Hispanic Period: the northeastern part of South America
and Mesoamerica. The panel is integrated by scholars from these regions
and is open to other researchers interested in the comparison and analysis
of the sociopolitical evolution of Chiefdoms and State societies in these
regions as well.

The panel will be dedicated to the examination of general tendencies and
particularities of appearance, evolution and functioning of social
stratification and power in the South American and Mesoamerican societies
in course of more than 3000 years from Formative Period to the first
quarter of the 16th century, the time of Spanish Conquest. The Andean
region and Mesoamerica are two of the few regions in the world, where
complex societies and states emerged independently of contacts with other
parts of the earth that gives to researchers the unique "opportunity" for
checking the existing theories of complex societies and state formation.
This moment is combined with exceptional richness of archaeological
materials and written sources, which makes possible to reconstruct at
least in general forms the main vector of South American and Mesoamerican
civilizations' development as well as concrete variants of their evolution
in various parts of the regions.

Departing from these general objectives, the panel will deal with three
main blocks of questions to be discussed during its sessions:
- Discussion and evaluation of theoretical models, methodological
approaches and / or archaeological indicators related directly to the
societies in the regions and period mentioned above.
- Discussion of several aspects based on the archaeological record and/or
ethnohistoric sources, related to the formation of hierarchical and net
structures, social inequality, gender roles, funerary practices, long
distance trade, diffusion of knowledge, and the possible relationship
between these two regions and/or some of their forms of socio-political
organization.
- Main economic and environmental factors of appearance and evolution of
states and complex societies in South American and Mesoamerica;
- Economic, ideological and social bases of power in Formative, Classic
and Postclassic societies

The Images of Power, State and Leaders
Convenor: Dr. Tatiana V. Evgenyeva (Institute for African Studies, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mails: etv at rol.ru; etv133 at mail.ru)

While observing the facts and reasons, because of which the relations
between the population and the power is undergoing changes, we'll pay
attention to the context of power perception.

These relations is not be limited to the ratings, proposed by different
sociologic agencies. it is necessary to analyse the structure of political
perception in general, taking into account more complicated and fine
mechanisms, than those fixed by sociological questionnaires.

Images of power have complex structure, in which one should distinguish
alongside the rational level, which is being fixed in sociological
surveys, also the level of unconsciousness, to find out which we need
different, mainly psychological instruments. This level is composed not
only under the influence of the current political events, but also under
the impact of the traditions of national political culture, those
archetypes, which have been rooted in mass consciousness for a long time.
Images of power are also based on the images of specific power holders in
mass consciousness.

Within the research of the images of power  it is necessary to compare
images of power and images of the person of leader in public mentality, to
find the basis of these images in national culture, including the image of
the state, to explore dynamics of the attitudes of rank-and-file citizens
towards real and ideal power.

We invite the participants to discuss the problems of real and ideal power
and state, images of "our" and "alien" political leader, "our" and "alien"
state, mass ideas of actual and "shade" political power and political
system.

The Newcomers and Old-Timers: Intercultural Communication, Social
Transformations and Migration Policy
Convenors: Prof. Dmitri M. Bondarenko (Institute for African Studies,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: dbondar at hotmail.com); Dr.
Veronica V. Usacheva (Institute for African Studies, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: veronius at rambler.ru)

Activation of the migration processes, one of the key characteristic
features of our time, is often seen as a source of social tension
determined by cultural differences between the newcomers and old-timers in
a society. Both cultural and social differences and contradictions between
the migrants and initial citizens are to be given consideration in the
Panel. One of the Panel's goals is to study the migrants and autochthonous
population interdependent images in the each others' consciousness,
stemming from the premise that the images of other cultures affect
crucially the attitude to the respective cultures representatives. Owe to
these images the stereotypic visions of other peoples are formed and
reproduced, they influence directly the practice of the relations with
them. It is important to reveal not only the images as such but also the
historical backgrounds for, and dynamics of their formation in different
countries of the world, their specificity and directionality that depends
on the socio-cultural features of both the "accepting milieu" and various
migrant communities. Simultaneously with the formation of the mutual
images of different cultures representatives - now dwellers of the same
country and members of the same society, one more process is on, too. This
process also has two aspects, dealing with which is a part of the Panel's
tasks. On the one hand, the migrant communities are becoming diasporas -
net associations that establish informal as well as semiformal and formal,
links and hierarchies within themselves, with the recipient society, with
the country of origin, and with the analogous compatriot communities in
other countries. Although in the diaspora communities the pre-migration
cultural traditions and social relations are supported and may remain
unchanged for a much longer time than in the country of origin, these
communities inevitable have to conform to the principles of the recipient
society. On the other hand, the process of the migrant communities'
socio-cultural integration in the latter presupposes securing by them of
some social and professional niches what leads to transformation of the
whole system of social hierarchies in a given society. The role of the
directing force, of mediators and regulators in the relations between a
country's cultural majority and the migrant communities is to be played by
the civil society institutions and the state that pursues the migration
policy in the legal, economic, social, cultural, educational, information,
and other spheres. Hence, an important task of the Panel is to consider
the migration policy in different states and the range and variety of the
migrant communities and the wider, whole society's "responses" to the
government's "challenges".

The Use of Symbolic Identities as Cultural Models of Power Legitimation:
The Case of the Navy and Merchant Fleet
Convenor: Mr. Ioannis Sideris (Merchant Marine Academy of Greece,
Thessaloniki; E-mail: siderisy at otenet.gr)

This proposal aims at the presentation of a research undergoing within the
frameworks of the Maritime Education and concerned with the variety of
cultural patterns of power legitimation on board military and merchant
ships.

These cultural patterns of legitimacy construction are viewed as being
parallel, converging, or conflictuous to the official mechanisms
distributing authority and power in the setting of a military or merchant
ship manned by a multinational/multicultural crew.

In particular, being the largest in the world by transporting capacity,
the Greek-owned merchant shipping industry operates under a variety of
flags [registries] and employs crews of many different national and ethnic
origins [mainly Asians and Eastern Europeans]. The Greek-owned shipping
industry is not only the most globalized and financially successful branch
of the Greek economy, but it is so in comparison with the rest of its
competitors as well.

As in any globalized economic environment, the imperatives structuring the
coexistence of different national, ethnic, and cultural factors in the
workplace are interweaved with and affected by a number of well known
phenomena, namely inter-ethnic conflict, nationalist and religious
presumptions, or, simply, unavoidable ingredients of a still semantically
dominant but controversial "Clash of Civilizations".

In the light of the findings of the undergoing research, the above
mentioned phenomena are not independent of the cultural models of power
and hierarchy legitimation, as these latter often function as
inter-cultural translators providing acceptable and workable individual
perceptions of hierarchical relations.

Hierarchy as an organizing principle of human groups, and the creation,
transformation, or mutation of symbolic identities as a means to overcome
the conflictuous character of hierarchy formation, is the object of our
study whose most salient aspects would be presented at the panel. More
precisely, we shall make use of a research on the maritime microcosm to
focus, in a structurally encompassing manner, on the following issues /
problematics of the Conference:
1). ideology and legitimation of power in different civilizational
contexts, where we shall examine the role of the socially dominant
ideologies in the shaping of individual cognitive schemata;
2). cultural models of power's perception in different civilizations,
where we shall try to articulate the artifact of symbolic identity with
the existence of cultural patterns of legitimacy construction;
3). power, society, and culture in the era of globalization, where we
shall propose an alternative reading of the inter-cultural dynamics in
regard to what is currently considered as up-to-date theory in "Managerial
Anthropology", inter-cultural management, and conflict resolution studies.

Traditional Identities in Modern Social and Political Processes in the
Caucasus
Convenor: Dr. Enver F. Kisriev (Institute for African Studies, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: kisriev.dagestan at mtu-net.ru); Prof.
Robert Bruce Ware (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville; E-mail:
rware at siue.edu); Dr. Naima Neflyasheva (Institute for African Studies,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; E-mail: innef at mail.ru)

The Caucasus is a very specific region of the world where various
communities based on deeply rooted traditional modes of social ties
(clan-like, Jamaat-like, ethnic, religious and other identities) preserve
their stability and actually reveal themselves in social and political
life.

When after the collapse of the Soviet Union some radial political
transformations occurred in the Caucasus, studies relating to regeneration
of the traditional Caucasian identities and their participation in social
and political processes developing in the states of the Southern Caucasus
as well as in North Caucasian subjects of the Russian Federation acquired
a strong scientific and practical interest.

Transfer of Institutions and Technologies in the Context of Dialogue of
Civilizations
Convenor: Prof. Yuri V. Gromyko (Institute of Advanced Studies, Moscow,
Russia; E-mail: nmu at dol.ru)

Among the most important constituent bases of the contemporary world are
communicability and transferability, especially insofar as they concern
institutions and technological systems (both industrial and humanitarian)
at the level of interstate relations.

The study and explanation of phenomena such as the interaction and
transfer of institutions and technologies, particularly from the
perspective of power and politics, are thus one of the most challenging
tasks pertaining to the goal of establishing regional and global security,
as well as of preserving identities. Is Russia prepared today to not only
borrow and acquire institutions and technologies - first and foremost
"Western" ones - but also translate them? What are the place and role of
the state itself as an institution and how can this institutional and
technological transfer be accomplished in the context of dialogue of
civilizations? What is to happen both to the country identity and to
ethnic identities in such a context? What humanitarian technologies should
be like? These are questions that actually inquire int o the place, part,
and functions of the state as a political institution in the contemporary
world.

The present-day world of globalization is the Oikumene that is
deteriorating because of the unrestrained expansion of a limited set of
technologies over the entire universe - technologies destroying biological
and sociocultural diversity in the world - as well as because of the
imposing on all residents of the "global village" of a narrow circle of
values obliterating their identities. The overcoming of "egoculturalism"
and the building of an intercivilization dialogue are the most pressing
problems of nowadays. The examination of these issues and possible
projects of solving problems of global and regional security are the focus
of the section.

Problems for discussion:
1). Principal characteristics of the contemporary world and the role of
the state as a political institution
2). The transfer of institutions and technologies: historical, regional,
cultural, and political aspects
3). The translation of institutions and technologies in the context of the
issue of maintenance and preservation of identities

War, Economy and Society in Southern Africa, 1867-1902
Convenor: Prof. Ian Phimister (University of Sheffield, UK; E-mail:
i.phimister at sheffield.ac.uk)

Such a panel, we believe, would engage with several of the wider
Conference issues and themes, particularly those of 'from simple societies
to the world-system: pathways and forms of political integration';
'socio-political and cultural-mental factors of social transformation';
and 'violence and non-violence in the history of political institutions'.

Our reasons for thinking this are as follows: the violent integration at
the end of the 19th century of the southern African sub-continent into the
wider world of European, largely but not entirely British, imperialism,
has long attracted the interest of historians and other scholars. Yet both
the long-term origins and the short-term causes of the South African
['Anglo-Boer'] War are still hotly debated. Amongst many possible
explanations for this continuing historiographical controversy is the fact
that the 'Boer' side, or sides, of the question has not been
systematically examined. We are convinced that a revision of the Kruger
[Transvaal / ZAR] state's standing in history is long overdue. President
Kruger's own crucial role as an innovator, especially with regard to his
insights and policies in connection with the economy of the ZAR, stands in
urgent need of thorough-going investigation. Reassessment of the pattern
of modernization of the ZAR and the part played by Kruger, is likely
wholly to recast interpretations of the coming of the South African War.
It will provide an opportunity to scrutinize critically, not least from a
wide range of international perspectives, those polarized views that have
seen the conflict as essentially one between Boer backwardness and British
civilization.